HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 29091 of 2019 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. 1. Mr. Ratan Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is order dated 25th March, 2019 passed by respondent no. 3 (the Additional District Magistrate) demanding payment for recovery on allegation of illegal mining. Purported ex-parte inspection was alleged to have been made, on the basis of which his client has been issued impugned order along with blacklisting of his client. On query he submits, in paragraph 3 particulars of payments already made in excess of the demand, have been stated. 2. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel appears for State. He submits, paragraph 9 contains particulars of earlier payments made. Demand in impugned order is post said payments period. 3. Impugned order was issued on 25th March, 2019. Petitioner upon obtaining interim order dated 16th September, 2019 on direction restraining coercive action, has now mentioned for urgent hearing. Mr. Singh submits, rejoinder was filed. It is not available. He hands up his copy. 4. Paragraph 21 from the counter is reproduced below. "21. That in reply to the contents of paragraph nos. 9, 10, 11 of the writ petition, it is submitted that admittedly the petitioner has not deposited the installment as per the schedule provided in the registered contract/mining lease (relevant page 58 of the writ petition). The security deposit is subject to the terms and conditions of mining lease." Paragraph 10 in rejoinder dealing with paragraph 21 of counter is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anupam Kumar, Birendra Singh, Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Sarwar Ali Siddique Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Abdul Samad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) reproduced below. "10. That the contents of para no.21 and 22 of the counter affidavit are wholly misconceived and misleading hence, vehemently denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that c For ready reference, Section 15(3) of MMDR Act, 1957 is quoted as under: Section 15(3) The holder of a mining lease or any other mineral concession granted under any rule made under sub- section (1) shall pay royalty or dead rent, which ever is more in respect of minor minerals removed or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub lessee at the rate prescribed for the time being in the rules framed by the State Government in respect of minor minerals. Provided that the State Government shall not enhance the rate of royalty or dead rent in respect of any minor mineral for more than once during any period of three years." There is no denial by petitioner on assertion of the authority of there having been default on installment payments. In the circumstances, petitioner cannot dispute the demand. We may go so far as to extend time for petitioner to liquidate the balance. For the purpose petitioner may make representation and produce certified copy of our order to obtain the accommodation, for liquidation of the demand by installment payments. In event such approach is made to respondent no. 3 (the Additional District Magistrate), said authority to consider for purpose of obtaining the arrears of revenue. On further default, if any, there be action for recovery in accordance with law. 5. Petitioner's copy of the rejoinder be kept in the file for reconstructing it. Mr. Singh submits, entire outstanding has been liquidated. The position can be elaborated in the representation to be made. 6. The writ petition is disposed of. September 11, 2026 Jaswant WRIC No. 29091 of 2019 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Satya Veer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad